MA S TER 

NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-80620-16 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  r.    •     » 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the  ,^,^r, 

NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia.  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR : 


ANDERSON,  ANDREW  R 


TITLE: 


USE  OF  THE  OE-DIPH 
THONG  IN  PLAUTUS 


PLACE: 


CHICAGO 


DA  TE : 


1909 


u 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


\t 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARCFT 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


BKS/PRQD   Books       FUL/BIB   NYCa92-h{35915 
Record  1  of  o  -  Record  added  todav 


I0:HYCG92~B359iS 
CC:9663  BLTram 


CP : i 1 u 
PC ;  s 


i 

245  lA 

260 

300 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


QD 


DCF:? 
INf  ;? 


RIYP:a 
CSC:? 
Ur^C:? 
REP:? 
DM: 


3T:p 
MOD: 
B 1 0 :  ? 
CPl:? 


RR 


KRN: 
SNR: 
FlC:? 
FSl:? 
COL  : 


Acquis]  tiorro 


MS:        EL: 
AlC: 
CON:??? 


L:eng 

PD:l/;uv/ 

OR:  COL: 

HNt;!cMI!(.: 
Andei  ::oii ,    f^ndr  ew   R. 

rha   Use   of    the   Oh-Diphthong    in   Piau tus} hrmicroPorm  ] 
Chicago,,  b!  he   University   of    Chicago   Pr  ess,  ^c;J.90V 

/■9I  ~:A)i}    p. 
ORJii 
05-2  7-92 


ILC:???? 

LML: 


NYCG-Pr 


AD: 05-27-92 
UD:05-27-92 


11:? 
UEM: 


l-»oh : 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

fxlh^T.  ^J?^-— ~~^^^^^^^-  REDUCTION     RATIO:        //< 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  UlS    IB.    IIB 

DATE     FILMED:_f_'/2:.?>:__^^____     INITIALS ^Z/?;^^ 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUDLICATIONS.  INC  WOODDRIDGe7ct 


%. 


^. 


c 


Association  for  informatioii  and  image  iWanagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100. 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1234         56789        10       11 

lliiliiniiiiilmiliiiilniiliiiilii  iliiiiliiiiliiiiliiijIiiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliniliMn^ 


I 


1 


Inches 


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

2  3 


I  I  I  I  I 


1.0 

1^    III  2.8 

|5j0       "'=== 
1^      |||£ 

■  63 

11 
IS,     ^ 

lUbu 

1.4 

2.5 
22 

I.I 

2.0 
1.8 

1.6 

1.25 

12       13       14       15 


mm 


MfiNUFRCTURED   TO  RUM  STONOfiROS 
BY   RPPLIED   IMAGE.     INC. 


The  Use  of  the  CE-Diphthong 

in  Plautus 


ANDREW  R.  ANDERSON 


I  . 


Reprinted  from  Classical  Philology,  Vol.  IV,  No.  3,  July,  1909 


PUBUSHED  BY 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS,  CHICAGO 
Foreign  Agents:    London:  Lozac  &  Co.;  Leipzig:  Orro  HARRASsowm 


THE  USE  OF  THE  OE-DIPHTHONG  IN  PLAUTUS 

Br  Andrew  R.  Anderson 

In  connection  with  my  Doctor's  dissertation,  in  which  the 
status  of  the  ei-readings  in  the  Plautine  MSS  was  examined,  the 
late  Professor  Minton  Warren  had  originally  suggested  that  I 
undertake  a  similar  study  of  the  oe-diphthong.  The  purpose  of 
this  paper  is  to  carry  out  that  suggestion. 

First  let  me  define  the  three  categories  in  which  the  oe-diph- 
thong  may  be  considered : 

•      I.    Words  in  which  the  oe-diphthong  was  never  reduced  to  u 
If  a  reduction  ever  took  place,  it  was  not  to  u  but  to  e,  and  the 
change  was  generally  confined  to  Low  Latin  or  Romance;  cf.  Ital 
pena<^pcena;  Span,  hedo  <^foedus,  "filthy." 

In  this  category  are  native  Latin  words  containing  oe  for 
original  L-E.   ot-diphthong,  amoenus,  coenum   (but  cf.  Walde 

S'i^';,?''"''^*'^"''^'  '■  ""■  "''«^«'«").  foetor,  foetidus,  foedus 
falthy,  foedus  "treaty,"  moenta,  proelitim,  oiei;  words  contain- 
ing an  oe-diphthong  produced  by  contraction,  Cloelius,  coepi, 
coetus,  oboedio;  Greek  loan-words  in  which  the  oe  is  the  tran- 
scription of  01  or  ?),  poena,  comoedia. 

II.  Words  in  which  it  stands  for  I.-E.  oi,  and  in  which  in  Clas- 
sical Latin  it  was  reduced  to  u,  as  munus,  munera,  munio,  *mmie, 
muntceps,  municipium,  communis,  inmunis,  murus,  muto,  mutuus, 
spuma,  utor,  etc.,  cunae,  cunio,  euro,  cUra,  etc.,  ludus,  ludo,  etc  ' 
plures,  plurumi;  punio,  punicus,  puniceus,  and  probably  hums, 
emus,'  etc.  For  convenience  and  clearness  I  give  uniformly  ^ 
for  the  earlier  oe.  Obviously  the  discussion  of  this  category  will 
be  the  most  important  part  of  my  paper. 

III.  Loan-words  from  the  Greek,  in  which  oe  is  explained  as 
the  transcription  of  v,  as  Antamoenides,  lagoena.  For  further 
examples  see  Schuchardt  Vokalismus,  II.  278  ff. 

The  first  category  requires  no  further  treatment  in  this  paper, 
and  the  third,  in  my  opinion,  can  best  be  understood  after  a  full 

>  I.  e.,  if  the  deyelopment  be  hoiius  >  huius,  quoiiu,  (pronounced  coiius)  >  euiw,. 
[Classical  Philoloot  IV,  July,  1909]         291 


292 


Andrew  R.  Anderson 


discussion  of  the  second;  consequently  I  begin  by  citing  those 
instances  in  which  the  MSS  of  Plautus  give  or  point  to  the  archaic 
oe  for  the  classical  u, 

Bacch.  926:  moenitum. 

Capt.  254:  circummoenill. 

Cist.  540:  admoenivi. 

Pers.  554:  moenitum  (munitum  A,  monitum  P). 

559:  moenita  muro  A,  P  n.  1. 
Poen.  990,  991 :  Punice  ....  Poenus  Poenior,  Poenior  Bothe,  punier 

lihri. 
Pseud.  229:  Phoenicium  poeniceo. 

384:  admoenire. 

5856 ;  admoenire  (a  quotation  of  384). 
Stick.  695:  moenia  (=munera). 
Trin.  24:  inmoenest,  immunest  A,  In  menest  P. 
True.  102:  oenus  B,  unus  CD. 

Morphologically  noenum,  Aid.  67,  Bacch.  xxiii  ?  (Goetz  and 
Schoell)  belongs  here,  but  it  was  used  only  as  an  archaic  form, 
and  is  therefore  in  a  class  by  itself;  vid.  Walde  s.  v.  ''non.''  For 
some  conjectural  oe-readings  see  the  Triumvirate  edition  Mil.  223, 
228,  Eud.  934,  True.  2.  Rud.  692  moenia  BCD,  which  Schoell 
changes  to  moeniam,  is  hardly  worth  considering. 

The  reduction  of  oe  to  ii  is  generally  regarded  as  having  taken 
place  in  the  course  of  the  second  century  b.  c.  ;  so  Sommer 
Handbuch,  p.  88.  Lindsay  LL.,  p.  240,  puts  it  as  far  back  as 
the  beginning  of  the  century,  and  I  feel  confident  that  even  he 
did  not  date  the  change  too  early.  Probably  the  earliest  epi- 
graphic  evidence  for  the  change  is  found  in  utier  of  CIL  I.  33 : 

Quel  apice  insigne  DiaJis^aminis  gesistei. 

Mors  perfecit  tua  ut  essent  omnia  brevia, 

Honos  fama  virtusque  gloria  atque  ingenium, 

Quibus  sei  in  longa  licu/set  tibe  utier  vita, 

Facile  facteis  superases  gloriam  maiorum;  5 

Qua  re  lubens  te  in  gremiu,  Scipio,  recip/t 

Terra,  Publi,  prognatum  Publio,  Cornell. 

This  P.  Cornelius  Scipio  has  not  been  certainly  identified. 
Mommsen  puts  the  close  of  his  life  anywhere  from  204  to  154, 
and  on  account  of  such  linguistic  peculiarities  as  the  lack  of  -d  in 
the  ablative  and  the  reduction  of  oe  to  H  in  utier  4,  scholars  have 


The  Use  of  the  OE-Diphthong  in  Plautus 


293 


been  inclined  to  favor  a  later  rather  than  an  earlier  date.     How- 
ever, after  the  reading  of  in  agro  Teurano,  postscript  to  the  SC  de 
Bacchanalibus  CIL  I.  196,  of  186  b.  c,  and  the  discovery  of  the 
decree  of  Aemilius  Paulus,  CIL  II.  5041,  of  189  b.  c,  the  abla- 
tival  -d  no  longer  returns  to  plague  us  in  Plautus,  and  inasmuch 
as  in  every  other  respect  also  the  orthography  of  this  Scipio 
inscription  agrees  with  that  of  Plautus,  e.  g.,  the  differentiation 
of  t  in  insigne  1,  vita  4,  Fuhli  ....  Corneli  7,  from  the  ei- 
diphthong  in  quei  1,  gesistei  1,  sei  4,  tibe  4,  facteis  5,  the  failure 
to  use  double  consonants  in  gesistei  1,  licuiset  4,  superases  5  (cf. 
essent  2,  terra  7),  it  will  probably  be  correct  to  regard  the  spell- 
ing  utier  as  part  of  the  evidence  for  the  reduction  of  oe  to  u  at  an 
earlier  date  than  commonly  supposed.^     Even  if  a  later  date  is 
insisted  on  for  the  inscription,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that 
as  orthography  always  lags  behind,  generally  far  behind,  changes  in 
pronunciation— this  being  especially  true  of  the  Scipio  elogia— 
there  is  still  nothing  in  this  inscription  to  disprove  the  view  that 
the  oe-diphthong  had  already  been  monophthongized  to  U  in  the 
times  of  Plautus.     Indeed,  I  hope  to  present  some  evidence  in 
favor  of  the  view  that  it  had  been  reduced  at  least  as  early  as  the 
earliest  of  his  datable  plays— the  Miles  Gloriosus,  which  was 
brought  out  shortly  after  206  B.  c.     But  before  presenting  this 
additional  evidence,  let  me  consider  two  passages  that  seem  to 
point  to  a  contrary  conclusion — Pseud.  229: 

Cras  Phoenicium  poeniceo  corio  invises  pergulam. 

The  date  of  the  Pseudolus  is  191.  The  classical  form  oipoeni- 
ceus  is  pUniceus,  and  the  latter  orthography  might  be  expected 
for  Plautus,  if  the  statement  of  Lindsay  above  referred  to  be  cor- 
rect. But  in  the  present  passage  the  diphthong  has  probably  not 
been  reduced,  and  that  poeniceo  should  be  read  here  is  indispu- 
table. At  first  sight  this  passage  would  seem  to  prove  that  the 
pronunciation  as  well  as  the  orthography  would  be  poeniceus, 

1  On  the  assumption  that  both  oi  and  ou  in  the  SC.  de  Bacch.  are  archaisms  stand- 
ing for  an  actual  pronunciation  u,  it  would  be  possible  to  regard  PLOVS  (which 
occurs  three  times)  as  a  mistaken  restoration  for  *plois  *ploes  (cf.  couro  for  coero, 
CIL  1. 1419)  and  so  bring  it  into  Une  with  PLOIRVME,  CIL  I.  32,  and  ploeres,  Oic 
De  leg.  lu.  3. 6.  x-  » 


294 


Andbew  R.  Andebson 


poenicus,  poenio,  moenio,  commoenis,  oenus,  etc.  It  has  been 
brought  out  by  L.  Buchhold*  that  paromoeosis  was  at  its  height  in 
Plautus  and  Ennius  and  that  this  practice  has  given  us  much  evi- 
dence regarding  pronunciation  and  orthography  in  our  author. 
Yet  in  his  fondness  for  punning  Plautus  sometimes  even  went  so 
far  as  to  use  exceptional  or  archaic  forms;  cf.  Capt  67: 

indices  iustissumi 
domi  duellique  duellatorea  optumi. 

Here  duelli  and  likewise  duellatores  were  archaisms  even  for  the 
time  of  Plautus ;  duelli  isn't  even  found  in  a  single  MS  for  this 
passage.  Yet  Plautus'  fondness  for  like  sounds  leaves  no  doubt 
as  to  the  reading.     So  Amph,  1058 : 

corrumpta  sum  atque  apsumpta  sum, 

where  I  believe  Fleckeisen  is  perfectly  correct  in  reading  cor- 
rumpta  against  corrupta  of  the  MSS.     Mil.  1407 : 

dispennite  hominem  divorsum  at  distennite. 
Here  the  reading  dispennite  reported  by  Nonius  for  dispendite 
carries  with  it  the  change  of  distendite  of  the  MSS  to  distennite. 
So  in  Ennius  Epig.  ii    {CPL,  Ennius  Sat,  1.  66)    we  should 
probably  read  with  Bergk: 

Nemo  me  dacrumis  decoret  nee  funera  fletu 
faxit. 

We  must  not  then  close  our  eyes  to  the  possibility  that  poeniceo 
in  Pseud.  229  may  have  been  given  an  archaic  pronunciation  by 
Plautus  for  the  sake  of  closer  similarity  to  Phoenicium. 
The  other  passage  is  Poen.  990,  991 : 

NuUus  me  est  hodie  Poenus  Poenior, 
Poenior  is  the  correction  of  Bothe;  the  MSS  read  punior. 
Poenior  would  seem  to  point  to  poenio,  poenicus,  etc.,  but  here,  as 
in  the  passage  from  Pseud.,  the  form  is  shown  to  be  exceptional, 
being  in  fact  a  coinage  for  the  nonce,  and  standing  therefore  alto' 
gether  by  itself. 

#  '^^"rT"^**^  (a«tttera«u>nw)  apud vetoes Ramanorum poetas urn, Lips.  1883 ; 
cf.  E.  B.  T.  Spencer  Adnominatio  in  the  Plays  of  Plautus  vnth  Special  Reference  to 
Questums  of  Prmiunciation  and  Orthography,  Rome,  1906.  Unfortunately  Mr.  Spen- 
cer'8  mrestigation  leaves  much  to  be  desired. 


1 


The  Use  op  the  OE-Diphthong  in  Plautus 


295 


Plautus  has  left  us  no  statement  regarding  his  orthography  of 
oe-a  as  he  has  about  his  use  of  ei-i.  Cf.  Eud.  1305, 1306;  True. 
262-64.  The  evidence  for  his  pronunciation  of  oe  must  be  gath- 
ered principally  from  instances  of  assonance,  the  most  important 
being  Mil.  324: 

8c.    abi,  ludis  me,  Palaestrio. 
Pa.    tum  mihi  sunt  manus  inquinatae.    Sc.    quidum?    Pa.    quia 
ludo  luto. 

This  is  one  of  a  great  many  instances  where  Plautus  puns  a  long 
with  a  short  vowel  and  I  cite  the  following : 

Amph.  1:  Ut  vos  in  vostris  voltis;  of.  1006. 
318:  exossatum  osj  cf.  342. 
498:  uxore  usuraria. 
As.  142:  pane  in  pannis. 

568:  fideli  infidus. 
Bacch.  362:  crucisalum  me  ex  Chrysalo  (=crusalo);  of.  687. 

490:  malis  malim  modis. 
Merc.  83:  amens  amansque. 

161:  a  portu  apporto;  cf.  Ep.  595;  Mil.  316;  Rud.  1225. 

It  may  be  noted  that  generally  (but  not  always)  when  Plautus 
puns  a  long  and  a  short  vowel  in  arsi,  there  is  a  double  consonant 
or  its  equivalent  after  the  short  vowel.  In  thesi  he  is  freer  in  his 
treatment  both  of  sounds  and  of  quantities.  This  passage  from 
Mil.  324  is  not  conclusive  for  the  identity  of  the  quality  of  the 
sounds  compared  until  confirmed  by  other  evidence,  and  this  is 
found  in  Bacch.  129: 

Non  omnia  aetas,  Lyde,  ludo  convenit 

a  passage  that,  as  far  as  the  quality  of  the  sounds  compared  is 
concerned,  is  to  be  grouped  with 

Bacch.  362:  Crucisalum  me  ex  Chrysalo, 
687:  in  cruciatum  Chrysalum, 
1183:  Chrysalus  ....  excruciem. 

Together  they  prove  that  at  this  period  Greek  v  was  represented 
in  Latin  by  u,  so  that  in  129  the  sounds  compared  are  both  in  arsi 
and  identical  in  both  quality  and  quantity,  and  would  be  repre- 


I 


296 


Andrew  R.  Andebson 


sented  phonetically  by  Lude,  ludo,  and  etymologically  by  Lude 
loedo.  In  other  words,  the  sound  of  the  oe  «  oi)  in  loedo  (>  ludo) 
had  been  reduced  to  ii.  I  cannot  here  agree  with  Lindsay  LL, 
p.  248,  who  separates  Bacch.  129  from  Bacch.  362,  687,  II83' 
and  would  represent  the  phonetics  of  Lyde,  ludo  by  Liide,  lUdo 
I  hold  therefore  that  in  Mil,  325  the  pronunciation  is  faithfully 
represented  by  ludo,  luto  and  in  Bacch.  129  by  Lude,  ludo 

Hoffmann,  in  BB  XXVI.  137ff.,  denies  the  possibility  of  ludus, 
ludo  ever  having  come  from  the  I.-E.  stem  hid-  (cf.  v.  Grien- 
berger  Wiener  Sitzungsher.  CXLII.  VIII.  151),  which  he  says 
could  have  resulted  only  in  leid-  >  ltd.     To  make  good  his  conten- 
tion he  finds  it  necessary  to  treat  the  epigraphic  evidence  for  loed 
(hid)  as  of  no  value,  and  the  instances  of  its  occurrence  as  pseudo- 
archaisms,  interdependent  in  error.     Accordingly  he  takes  lUdo 
from  an  I.-E.  stem  *ghleu-d.,  cf.  x^^v-d^co.     If  the  conclusions  of 
Hoffmann  and  v.  Grienberger  are  correct,  then  the  puns  ludo  luto, 
Lyde  ludo  have  no  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  oe-diphthong 
in  Plautus.     Had  they  known  of  these  puns  they  would  probably 
have  treated  them  as  confirmatory  of  their  own  conclusions  (and 
to  complete  their  case  they  would  only  have  been  obliged  to  dis- 
prove the  original  oZ-diphthong  in  Utor,  euro,  etc.,  as  well). 

But  the  conclusions  of  Hoffmann  are  to  be  rejected  for  the 
following  reasons: 

a)  His  objection  to  the  phonetics  loid-yiUd-  is  not  valid-  cf 
Walde,  s.  V.  ^nudor  Sommer,  pp.  88,  91;  and  I  am  not  aware 
that  Lindsay  has  changed  his  view  of  the  etymology  of  lUdo  given 
m  Lat  Lang.  248.  Furthermore,  if  the  stem  neuh-  {iXevSepo^) 
gives  *louh-  >  loib-  >  leih-  >  lib-,  why  should  not  according  to  Hoff- 
mann (since  in  his  argument  he  ignores  the  labial  as  a  factor  in 
this  development)  ^ghleu-d  give  loud- yioid.yieid-yUd-9 

h)  To  deny  the  development  of  lildo  from  loido,  is  to  exclude 
all  possible  connection  of  these  words  with  Osc.  luisarifs:  cf. 
Buck  Gram,  of  Osc.  and  Urnhr.,  art.  138  and  p.  248,  No.  21. 

If  the  reduction  of  oi  to  U  was  already  an  accomplished  fact  in 
the  time  of  Plautus  in  lUdo,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
reduction  had  become  uniform  throughout  this  whole  category; 
and  Amph.  498  uxore  usuraria  seems  to  confirm  this  view,  aJ 


The  Use  of  the  OE-Diphthong  in  Plautus 


297 


this  phrase  was  probably  pronounced  Ussorie)  Ussuraria.^     Trin 
181,  182: 

Neque  adeo  hasce  emi  mihi  nee  ussurae  meae: 

Illi  redemi  russum 

is  of  doubtful  value  on  account  of  the  distance  of  ussurae  and 
russum  from  each  other.     Here  may  be  quoted  Most.  209: 

Cur  obsecro  non  curem  f 
and  Poen.  354: 

Qur  ego  id  cwrem?   nam  qui  istaec  magis  meast  cwratio? 
as  reasonably  sure  proof  of  the  reduction  of  oe  to  U  in  ciiro,  etc. 
The  value  of  the  two  quotations  is  not  impaired  by  the  fact  that 
cur  does  not  contain  I.-E.  U  (yet  cf.  J.  Schmidt  KZ  XXXII.  405, 
and  Persson  IF  II.  248),  or  by  the  fact  that  the  orthography  in 
the  time  of  Plautus  may  have  been  quor.     The  latter  form,  how- 
ever, rests  only  on  the  express  testimony  of  Velius  Longus  GL 
VII.  77.  9K,  and  lacks  epigraphic  confirmation  under  the  Kepub- 
lic,  whereas  in  OIL  1.  1454.  1   (time  of  the  Gracchi)  we  have 
QUR  =  cUr.     Etymologically  the  quality  of  the  u  in  cur  is  the  same 
asin/ilr;  cf.  Gk.  <^/),  and  Lorenz' note  on /tirmwm  ....  forum, 
Pseud.  790.     Quintilian  i.  7.  26  (cf.  i.  4.  10,  11)  has  told  us 
that  by  the  teachers  of  his  boyhood  seruus,  ceruus,  etc.,  were  still 
spelled  seruos,  ceruos,  in  order  that  the  gemination  of  the  u  might 
not  cause  them  to  be  pronounced  serUs  cerUs.     CUr  was  probably 
pronounced  in  the  same  way  in  the  time  of  Plautus  as  in  the 
time  of  Augustus,  and  nothing  was  to  be  feared  from  the  simpli- 
fied spelling  of  quor  y  quur  y  qUr  or  cur.     The    spelling    quor 
cited  by  Velius  Longus  and  used  by  Varro  was  etymological,  and 
conservative,  and  theoretical,  and  not  representative  of  its  pronun- 
ciation, which  was  cUr  even  for  the  time  of  PI.     Here  might  be 
quoted  Velius  Longus  GL  VII.  58.  4K,  to  the  effect  that  words 
like  primitiuus,  though  spelled  -uos  until  in  the  eighth  century  of 
the  city,  were  pronounced  -uus  and  not  -uos.    Combining  this  fact 
with  Bersu  Die  Gutturalen,  p.  53,  where,  on  the  basis  of  such 
spellings  as  oquoltod  (  =  occultod)  OIL  I.  196,  of  186  b.  0.  and 

»For  the  weakened  pronunciation  of  a?  to  ss  cf.  the  MSS  in  Ep.  248;  Rud.  729; 
Stixih.  163, 175,  272;  True.  913,  940;  Pseud.  1107  luxantur,  lustrantur.  Nonius  40,  24 
M,  and  the  development  of  x  in  Romance. 


2ii  Andrew  R.  Andebson 

quom  (  =  prep.  cum)  CIL  I.  34.  3,  end  of  the  sixth  century  of  the 
city,  he  proves  that  in  Republican  Latin   labialized  gutturals 
before  u  «o)  were  unknown,  we  have  still  further  proof  that 
quor  was  pronounced  cur  even  by  Plautus.     Cf.  Lindsay  LL  iv 
137.  3,  p.  300. 

The  instances  in  Plautus  in  which  an  original  li-sound  is 
punned  with  an  original  oi-diphthong  are  unfortunately  not  more 
numerous  than  those  already  cited,  unless  we  include  here  the 
very  attractive  interpretation  of  Aul  562  f.  by  Prescott  in  C.  P. 
II,  335  f.,  which  is  possible  only  on  the  hypothesis  that  coera  had 
already  been  reduced  to  ciira. 

Above  has  been  presented  the  evidence  for  believing  that  the 
oe  {oi)  which  we  find  monophthongized  to  u  in  Classical  Latin 
had  already  under  Plautus  been  thus  reduced  in  pronunciation. 
Admittedly  the  evidence  is  inconclusive,  but  the  hypothesis  has 
the  virtue  of  explaining  the  phenomena  met  with  in  a  more  satis- 
factory way  than  the  opposite  view  put  forth,  e.  g.,  by  Brugmann 
KVG  I,  p.  84,  where  he  says,  "oe  gait  zur  Zeit  des  Plautus." 
Here  he  means  pronunciation  as  well  as  spelling.  Whether  the 
Romans  were  swift  enough  innovators  in  spelling  reform  to  have 
made  the  change  in  orthography  also  is  doubtful,  but  I  should  be 
inclined  to  use  the  orthography  punio,  munio,  communis,  plures, 
euro,  utor  except  where  there  seem  to  be  special  reasons  for  doing 
the  contrary. 

The  instances  cited  on  pp.  2  ff.  may  be  considered  individually. 
Whenever  any  of  them  are  rejected,  it  is  only  their  diphthongal 
pronunciation  that  is  denied.  Noenum,  Aul  67,  Bacch.  xxiii; 
Poenus  Poenior,  Poen,  991 ;  Phoenicium  poeniceo,  Pseud.  229, 
may  be  accepted  for  reasons  previously  stated.  In  addition  to 
these  there  is  much  to  be  said  for  Fleckeisen's  moenit  (before 
moenia)  Mil.  228,  both  because  of  the  assonance  and  because  of 
the  dignified  nature  of  the  passage.  There  is  less  to  be  said  for 
his  moeni  223,  as  there  is  no  assonance  there.  In  the  remaining 
passages,  where  the  MSS  give  oe  for  m,  they  should  not  be  fol- 
lowed  except  for  special  or  additional  reasons,  and  it  must  be 
admitted  that  these  special  or  additional  reasons  are  likely  to  be 
more  or  less  subjective:  e.  g.,  moenitum,  Bacch,  926,  stands  in  a 


The  Use  of  the  OE-Diphthong  in  Plautus         299 


passage  that  has  a  heroic  tone  and  might  gain  in  impressiveness 
by  the  diphthongal  pronunciation.  The  same  reasons  could  be 
adduced  for  Cist  540;  Pers.  554,  559;  Pseud.  384,  585  a  (=384). 
However,  it  seems  unreasonable  that  we  should  read  moenitum  in 
Pers.  554,  and  moenita  559,  unless  we  extend  the  oe  also  to  muro 
559,  and  emend  munitum  muro  to  moenitum  moero  553,  and  murus 
to  moerus  560.  The  Triumvirate  editors  have  admitted  commoe- 
nibo  against  the  M8S  in  Bud.  934.  Their  reading  of  moeris  for 
vosMs,  True.  2,  is  not  felicitous.  No  special  reason  seems  to 
exist  for  circummocniti,  Capt.  254,  moenia  {  =  munera) ,  Stick. 
695,  inmoene,  Trin.  24,  oeniis,  True.  102. 

I  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  readings  of  category 
III,  namely,  those  in  which  oe  is  said  to  be  the  transcription  of 
Greek  v:  lagoenam,  Cure.  78;^  Antamoenides,  Poen.  cast  of 
characters.  The  Greek  originals  of  these  words  are  respectively 
\dyvvo<;  and  'AvTa/jLvvtSrj^;;  cf.  K.  Schmidt  in  Hermes  XXXVII. 
356.  The  precarious  position  of  oe  as  a  transcription  for  v  may 
be  gathered  from  Schuchardt's  discussion  of  it,  Vokalismus  II. 
278-87.  The  case  for  such  transcription  is  not  supported  by 
inscriptional  evidence,  but  rests  on  a  few  MS  readings,  and  on  the 
very  doubtful  readings  in  a  single  passage  in  a  single  gram- 
marian— Maximus  Victorinus  GL  VI.  196.  3K:  *'Quae  sunt 
litterae  peregrinae  ?  y  et  z.  Quare  peregrinae  ?  Siquidem  a 
nobis  propter  Graeca  nomina  adsumptae  sunt,  ut  puta  Hylas, 
zephyrus.  Quae  si  adsumpta  non  essent.  Hulas  et  sdepherus 
{sdephurusf)  diceremus."  Here  hoelas  [sic)  is  given  only  by 
one  MS,  Goth,  and  by  c,  while  sdephoerus  is  the  conjecture  of 
Ribbeck  BM  XII.  431.  Scliuchardt  loc.  cit.,  argues  in  favor  of 
these  two  readings.  Ritschl  Bonner  Sommerkat.  1856  had 
denied  that  oe  could  be  used  as  transcription  for  u,  but  had 
admitted  that  it  was  the  regular  transcription  for  v.  The  ques- 
tion of  chronology,  however,  must  be  considered,  and  I  have  no 
hesitation   in   rejecting    the    grammarian's    statement    (reading 

1  It  may  be  that  Fleckeisen  is  right  in  reading  lagaenam  (from  \dyrjvos ;  cf .  scaena 
<  <TKt)vfi)  making  thus  a  better  pun  on  leaenam  of  the  preceding  line.  If  so,  its  dis- 
cussion is  outside  the  scope  of  this  paper.  But  on  the  whole,  I  cannot  help  regarding 
the  reading  lagaenam  as  improbable  on  the  ground  of  the  questionable  standing  of 
\dyrjpos^  and  even  with  lagunam  the  pun  is  by  no  means  a  bad  one. 


300 


Andbew  R.  Andebson 


Hoelas  and  sdephoerus)  as  applied  to  Plautus.  For  in  our  poet's 
time  V  of  Greek  loan-words  in  Latin  was  pronounced  u,  as  turan' 
nus,  sucopanta.  This  is  so  well  established  as  not  to  require 
proof  here.  Consequently  if  these  words — lagoenam  Antamoenu 
des — are  to  stand  thus  in  our  text  of  Plautus,  they  are  to  be  pro- 
nounced as  though  spelled  with  ii,  or,  putting  the  matter  in  another 
way,  with  the  oe  that  in  the  time  of  Plautus  had  been  monoph- 
thongized to  u.  So  it  is  that  K.  Schmidt  he.  cit,  reads  Anta- 
munides,  and  Vendryes  Eecherches  sur  Vhistoire  et  les  effets  de 
VintensiU  inUiale  284  regards  the  form  lagoena  as  a  reversed 
form  of  writing  u. 

When  then  did  the  transcription  of  v  by  oe  come  into  vogue  ? 
Ribbeck  JJ  LXXV.  317  holds  that  it  came  in  with  Accius,  and 
in  frg.  122  we  find  Froegiae.  This  view  of  Ribbeck's  is  dis- 
proved by  Schuchardt  II.  287:  "Hatte  Accius  wirklich  oe  far  v 
eingefahrt,  und  ware  diese  Schreibung  schon  im  7.  Jahrhundert 
d.  St.  gang  und  gabe  gewesen,  so  wtlrde  uns  gewiss  inschriftliche 
Belege  derselben  nicht  fehlen"— a  process  of  reasoning  which, 
by  the  way,  is  equally  fatal  when  turned  against  the  conclusions 
of  Schuchardt  himself. 

We  are  safe  then  in  concluding  that  the  transcription  of  v  by 
oe,  if  ever  practiced,  did  not  take  place  until  imperial  times,  and 
did  not  affect  the  text  of  Plautus  except  so  far  as  this  was  corrupted 
by  having  such  forms  as  lagoenam  and  Antamoe7iide8  introduced 
into  it.  The  fact  that  for  Plautus'  time  oe  was  not  used  for  v  is 
still  further  evidence  against  Lindsay's  interpretation  of  the  sounds 
Lyde,  ludo,  Bacch.  129,  where  he  holds,  LL,  p.  248,  that  ludo 
still  has  a  diphthongal  pronunciation  of  oe  approaching  the  sound 
of  V  in  Lyde. 

Princeton  University 


■*■■-*■  J     J      *  J 


II. 


JOLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0025979140 


=  -J"^ 


■^^ 


■     =r^  X-       K-- 


M'-^- 


rf:'i^::^:^ 


rK¥'^' '  -:^ 


*  ^    *-^ 


* 


f  ■?. 


u'3 


»:^ 


j^;   '  VJr> 


«^x 


/.  ' 


•%- 


>p^> 


.-^^ 


^^^ 


^#. 


^■•Vi  -4- vsss 


